NYC Congestion Pricing: Could the MTA have done more to curb negative public opinion?
The Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) launched its Congestion Pricing Program aimed to relieve traffic in downtown and midtown Manhattan with toll revenue allocated to regional transit investments. The new variable pricing plan would charge passenger vehicles and trucks to access anywhere south of 60th Street, up to $9 during peak hours, with increases taking effect in 2028 at $12, and in 2031 at $15. Therefore, all vehicles crossing the East River bridges are now subject to the congestion pricing charge. The MTA offers discounts, tax credits and exemptions to some drivers entering the congestion zone. In 2019, after the State of New York passed the Traffic Mobility Act, the Regional Plan Association released the most comprehensive report on the impacts and opportunities of NYC’s Congestion Pricing Plan. Transit and transportation planners understand the benefits of the program generating $1 billion annually to fund major capital investments. But the program has been off to a rocky road since those benefits are lost in translation to the general public, in which there is little support.
The complexity of the pricing plan and elusive investments doesn’t help with positive public perception for the congestion pricing program. Even if only a mere two percent of the working poor would potentially pay a congestion charge, the name of the new program leaves the public to perceive it as a commuter tax, with little focus on its benefits – potential transit investments. The implementation of congestion pricing in New York continues to be unfavorable during a time when New York City was crowned the most expensive city in the world, while salary and wages remain near stagnant, and regional transportation and transit agencies continue to raise fares and tolling fees. New Jersey Transit (NJ Transit) increased fares by 15% on July 1, 2024; the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey has approved a fare increase for PATH trains, raising the cost of a ride by 25 cents to $3, effective January 12, 2025; Port Authority announced that new toll rates will go into effect starting Sunday, Jan. 5. The toll to enter New York via the Lincoln and Holland tunnels, the George Washington, Bayonne and Goethals bridges, and the Outerbridge crossing will increase $0.68. and there is speculation the MTA intends to increase fare prices to $3 later in 2025. Whether it is bad timing or high transportation costs, the Traffic Mobility Law: Congestion Pricing has been unfavorable to commuting New Yorkers outside the congestion zone, because of the perception of an increased high cost of living, with little return in value.
In fact, by April, 2024, a Siena College Poll found nearly two-thirds of New Yorkers opposed the Congestion Pricing Plan. The good news, commuters will eventually adjust, the bad news, the program, and the unknown Traffic Mobility Law behind it, is starting off as widely unpopular, with multiple litigation battles.
Could the MTA have done more to curb negative public opinion? Here are Blackandurban’s key takeaways on how the MTA could have improved the public’s perception of New York State’s Traffic Mobility Act, which has set the stage for Congestion Pricing:
1. Bad Figure of Speech = Bad Publicity
The terminology “Congestion Pricing” is a synecdoche for New York’s “Traffic Mobility Act”, which was passed by New York State legislature in 2019. This means Congestion Pricing is one aspect of the Traffic Mobility Law, but the term has been publicly used to describe the entirety of the law. This may have been the MTA’s largest shortcoming to such a transformative policy, in which the public has deduced to a new toll – a tax.
2. The Traffic Mobility Act has potential to be as Influential as Mexico’s Mobility and Road Safety Law
“The Traffic Mobility Act”, as it stands, is a good start, but has the potential to be more comprehensive. As it stands, it is elusive, and hard for the public to digest. Semantics is important when it comes to public policy. For the public, the terminology of the law, could have been broader and more legible for public consumption to encompass the goals of the Traffic Mobility Act, such as implementing congestion pricing, reduce roadway congestion, and increase funding for transit mobility and accessibility. Perhaps the next step would be to complement the State’s roadway safety laws for a comprehensive approach to transit and roadway mobility and safety. (Blackandurban’s subsequent piece will illustrate how Mexico was able to pass legislation encompassing both roadway and transit safety and mobility via: Mexico’s Mobility and Road Safety Law. A different name of the law, such as: “Safe Roads, Transit Mobility and Congestion Mitigation Law” could have won more of the public’s favor.
3. Conduct a Robust Public Education Campaign and Marketing Initiative around a Broader Safe Roads, Transit Mobility and Congestion Mitigation Law
The Traffic Mobility Act, required “A testing period of at least 30 days and a public information campaign of at least 60 days prior to the operation date”. In 2023, the MTA had therefore conducted four hearings, virtual and in-person, where the public will have the opportunity to comment on the proposed plan and suggest amendments before a final vote in the spring. The times and dates were as followed:
a. Thursday, Feb. 29, at 6:00 p.m.
b. Friday, March 1, at 10:00 a.m.
c. Monday, March 4, at 10:00 a.m.
d. Monday, March 4, at 6:00 p.m.
The hearings were held on the 20th floor of 2 Broadway in Manhattan in which there was also a Zoom option.
This may have been the MTA’s second largest shortfall. Although, a public comment period via Board hearing is typically required to receive input regarding implementing public policies of this nature, the Law, and MTA failed to educate the public on the benefits, procedure and jurisdictions involved in the congestion pricing plan. From the start, the focus of the Traffic Mobility Law: Congestion Pricing was centered on the congestion zone, with very little marketing and engagement with residents and business owners outside the congestion zone. An actual robust public information or education campaign, should have positively portray a more extensive “Safe Roads, Transit Mobility and Congestion Mitigation Law”, with context-sensitive transit investments, and surface transportation projects linked to the City’s Vision Zero Initiative, in each community. The marketing should include: a slew of digital media advertisements, including social media, and television ads; newspaper ads; meetings with community leaders; and engaging residents at pop-ups, outside the congestion zone.
The focus of the public education campaign should have centered around New York City’s outer boroughs, suburban communities, including New Jersey and Connecticut communities. There was no intentional educational outreach conducted to these communities that would increase their buy-in about the law.
4. Implement Transit and Bicycle Improvements Prior to Starting Congestion Pricing
The RPA recommends implementing transit and bicycle improvements prior to starting congestion pricing. Although MTA and NYCDOT has always been committed to upgrading road and transit infrastructure, with MTA typically citing budget constraints, both micromobility and transit investments leading up to Congestion Pricing were simply not enough. In addition, major investments in transit deserts with low- and moderate-income households, outside of the congestion zone, throughout the city and region, should have been tied to a broader Safe Roads, Transit Mobility and Congestion Mitigation Law. London has implemented congestion pricing, but with an already robust transit network that could accommodate its 15 million population.
5. Adopt Specific Objectives and Metrics
Again, the RPA has it right, by recommending to adopt specific objectives and metrics to meet traffic, environmental, and health goals and ensure that benefits are equitably shared, and just as importantly, to make those goals public, and “metrics and monitoring should measure neighborhood impacts, and transit improvements should prioritize neighborhoods with fewer transit options, lower household incomes, and disproportionate pollution impacts.”
6. Substantial Revenue should be Allocated to New Jersey Transit and Port Authority’s PATH
New Jersey leaders should have had a seat of the table from the beginning of congestion pricing meetings, and congestion pricing revenue allocations and infrastructure investments to NJ Transit and PATH should have been made to the public, and early to gain public buy-in. Northern New Jersey contributes 25% of Metropolitan NYC’s GDP, second after the New York City municipal boundary, which contributes 49% of the region’s GDP, and The number of people commuting to New York City from northern New Jersey grew 62% from 276,000 in 1990 to 447,000 in 2022.
“Singapore, which first first pioneered Congestion Pricing in 1975, and European cities thereafter, are not burdened by its negative consequences, as American cities are, in the context of reparative planning. Therefore its easier and less controversial to implement Congestion Pricing in European cities in a more fair and equitable manner. New York City’s pluralism, with its historically unjust land use and transportation practices, should justify a unique approach, and thus, think outside the box, and expand the Congestion Zone in New York. ”
7. How do Black and Brown Communities Perceive the Traffic Mobility Law: Congestion Pricing
Courtesy of NYC Regional Planning Office
Drastic population shifts of Black/African American and Latino ethnic groups from the city’s center, (including within the congestion pricing zone) to the suburbs in the past decade illustrates the two phenomenon affecting their communities: gentrification and displacement. According to a New York Post poll, 72% of Black New Yorkers oppose the congestion pricing toll. The toll is also opposed by: 62% of Latinos. While only 10% of Black and Brown commuters drive into Manhattan, Traumatic events such as gentrification - where wealthier residents are relocating to a neighborhood in which goods and services therefore increases with the stress of potential displacement – its reasonable for Black and Brown groups to be weary of the Traffic Mobility Act – Congestion Pricing public transit benefits. Historically, Black and Brown communities have been underserved by government’s capital investments, adding to the distrust in the civic system. Many Black and Brown residents believe agencies only start to invest in their communities after an influx of white residents relocate.
Black and Brown groups may view the new Traffic Mobility Law and Congestion Pricing to be an additional tax, (whether they take public transit or drive into the city), with little or no benefits to their communities. This is where specific and intentional and thoughtful marketing and public education campaigns, and outreach could have helped with the program’s public perception in communities outside the zone, and specifically in Black and Brown communities experiencing gentrification and on the verge of displacement.
Unfortunately, there are adverse effects to the Traffic Mobility Act’s Congestion Pricing, in 2023, the Black Institute released a scathing report, calling out the adverse effects of congestion pricing to Black and Brown communities within the city, Just Call it a Black and Brown Toll: An Analysis of the MTA’S Proposed Congestion Pricing Plan, in which they wrote “…the anticipated rise of air pollution in the Bronx and Harlem, corresponding to an expected rise in traffic as commuters seek to avoid congestion tolls. These are neighborhoods that house an overwhelming majority of Black and brown residents, who will suffer the economic and environmental effects of increased pollution.” In 2022, the South Bronx Unite published the concerns of the South Bronx community: “the Cross Bronx Expressway would experience more traffic – potentially upward of 700 extra trucks a day – under all of the seven scenarios of congestion pricing studied by researchers, according to a report released by the Metropolitan Transportation Authority and being shared with communities. And the highway and borough could face more pollution, too.”
8. To Be Fair, The Congestion Zone Should be Expanded
The Cross Bronx Expressway near Jerome Avenue, Bronx, NY. File photo/Adrian Childress & Courtesy of AMNY
According to FHWA’s National List of Major Freight Highway Bottlenecks and Congested Corridors Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Freight Mobility Trends: Truck Hours of Delay, 2019, 3 out of the top 10 most congested interstate highways in the United States are located in New York City, with the most congested being the Cross-Bronx Expressway.
Singapore, which first first pioneered Congestion Pricing in 1975, and European cities thereafter, are not burdened by its negative consequences, as American cities are, in the context of reparative planning. Therefore its easier and less controversial to implement Congestion Pricing in European cities in a more fair and equitable manner. New York City’s pluralism, with its historically unjust land use and transportation practices, should justify a unique approach, and thus, think outside the box, and expand the Congestion Zone in New York. In fact, the Mayor of London is supportive of expanding their congestion zone, “although there are no plans to extend the boundary of the central London Congestion Charge Zone. Proposal 21 of the draft Transport Strategy sets out that Transport for London would support boroughs that wished to introduce local traffic reduction measures, including, for example, local congestion charges.
9. The Traffic Mobility Act Should have A Focus on Safety and an Emphasis on Subway Expansion
Courtesy of MTA - Interborough Express - System Map - Brooklyn/Queens
If you’ve lived in New York City in the 80s to the early 2000s, the recent media coverage of subway system probably doesn’t startle you. In this case, bad publicity is not good publicity. To ensure adequate ridership, it’s important for MTA’s customers to have a high perceived level of safety. Investments from the Traffic Mobility Law should allocate funding to social service and health programs to assist homeless and the mentally ill who dwell in the subway’s trains and stations.
Although the MTA has cited funding allocations from the Traffic Mobility Law: Congestion Pricing Program to capital expansion projects such as the Interborough Express linking a new light rail between Bay Ridge, Brooklyn and Jackson Heights, Queens; and continuing phase 2 of the send avenue subway extension into Harlem, Manhattan. But with $1 billion annual allocations to the MTA, more subway expansion projects should have been noted, especially in rail-scare parts of the city such as Queens, perhaps extending a subway line to LaGuardia Airport.
Courtesy of MTA - Interborough Express - Station Rendering - Brooklyn/Queens